NYC politician wants Bills+Giants to adopt Jets Anthem policy

[purple haze]

On 6/1/2018 at 11:34 PM, Buffaloflash said:

And this too,was disrespectful!

How so?  You have a group of people on stage who would be directly affected by the policies of the administration Pence is a part of.   They did not physically attack him or curse him or call him out of his name; in fact, the actor who spoke on behalf of the production chided the audience for jeering Pence before he spoke to Pence.

 

The performers asserted their humanity and hope that the administration would represent all people; as the president's words and actions at that point called that into question.  Did you actually hear or read what was said?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...if the NFL as Standard Operating Procedure chooses to play the national anthem and requires EMPLOYEES of the NFL to stand, where are they wrong?.......

 

As brought up by Mickey and others earlier in the thread, there's a bunch of legal precedent including Supreme Court decisions against compelling political or religious speech or disallowing a rule requiring that people stand to salute the flag (stand for the national anthem would be considered along the same lines, I believe).

 

That is likely why the recent policy allows the "out" of remaining in the locker room, as an attempt at a "reasonable accommodation" compromise.

 

Like most compromises, it will likely end by satisfying no one

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

As brought up by Mickey and others earlier in the thread, there's a bunch of legal precedent including Supreme Court decisions against compelling political or religious speech or disallowing a rule requiring that people stand to salute the flag (stand for the national anthem would be considered along the same lines, I believe).

 

That is likely why the recent policy allows the "out" of remaining in the locker room, as an attempt at a "reasonable accommodation" compromise.

 

Like most compromises, it will likely end by satisfying no one

 

...as you said bud, "I believe" as in opinion versus legal jurisprudence.......BUT THAT is a question for lawyers in litigation milking the system for $1,000+ an hour ...which could go on longer than a TT debate thread.......are you acknowledging the symbol of the country or does it mean you espouse to its views, etc?.......WELL beyond my pay grade............

[Sky Diver]

3 hours ago, K-9 said:

Regarding the notion that standing = patriotism, members of white supremecist groups stand and salute our flag at their rallies. Should we consider them “patriots” as well? 

 

False syllogism. Standing doesn’t equal patriotism.

[K-9]

29 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

False syllogism. Standing doesn’t equal patriotism.

I agree. The question was posed to those that say not standing is unpatriotic. 

[mannc]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...if the NFL as Standard Operating Procedure chooses to play the national anthem and requires EMPLOYEES of the NFL to stand, where are they wrong?.......

What if they required players to stand at attention and pledge allegiance to Donald Trump before every game.  Do you think that would be wrong?

Edited June 3, 2018 by mannc

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

As brought up by Mickey and others earlier in the thread, there's a bunch of legal precedent including Supreme Court decisions against compelling political or religious speech or disallowing a rule requiring that people stand to salute the flag (stand for the national anthem would be considered along the same lines, I believe).

 

That is likely why the recent policy allows the "out" of remaining in the locker room, as an attempt at a "reasonable accommodation" compromise.

 

Like most compromises, it will likely end by satisfying no one

Probably right. As for the compromise, it satisfies me. Don't want to stand for the anthem? Cool, don't come out until it's over. It's the only thing the NFL , as the business that it is could realistically have done. End the affiliation with the military? Nope, that would tick off a sizable segment of the customers. Get rid of doing the anthem altogether? Probably the same. Players can stand or " opt out". A sensible compromise that harms no one. Most importantly, it ( should) remove the NFL from controversy over this whole thing, which is what any business would do. The  folks griping about the compromise are likely also throwing kudos at ABC for cancelling Roseanne. It's just what businesses do. They think about the bottom line, and respond with that in mind. 

[Sky Diver]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I agree. The question was posed to those that say not standing is unpatriotic. 

 

It’s disrespectful.

[K-9]

Just now, Sky Diver said:

 

It’s disrespectful.

Nice to know those white supremecists are being so “respectful” when they stand and salute the flag. 

[Sky Diver]

12 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Nice to know those white supremecists are being so “respectful” when they stand and salute the flag. 

 

I think you should make your case based on reason and logic rather than on an emotional appeal evoking “white supremecists”.

 

Why do you Americans have been standing for the flag since June 14, 1777?

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by Sky Diver

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Nice to know those white supremecists are being so “respectful” when they stand and salute the flag. 

They are being respectful to the tradition of standing to honor America while the anthem is played. Yes , even a grossly misguided person is capable of that and even a cretin can understand it. There are likely numerous scumbags and societal menaces/ deviants in attendance at any game. No, we don't know who they are. What does that have to do with standing for the playing of the country's anthem? 

[Cripple Creek]

6 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

I think you should make your case based on reason and logic rather than on an emotional people  evoking “white supremecists”.

 

Why do you Americans have been standing for the flag since June 14, 1777?

 

It really is a valid question/point. 

 

You seem to be implying that regardless of what else you do or believe in if you stand for the anthem you are a respectful American.  

3 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

While, as I’ve said, I don’t “understand” the jump you and others are prepared to make, I do applause your passion for a cause.

BTW, I also applaud Kaepernick and others for their passion.

[SouthNYfan]

3 hours ago, tumaro02 said:

I have never in my Bills life of 50 years been put in this predicament. I am a diehard fan. I have no problems with Colin's passion. My problem is with the "brilliant" owners not nipping this in the bud and then allowing it to fester. Disrespecting the fan base by the very players who the fan base supports to me is incredibly callous especially when done during a time honored pregame ritual. I hope I am not going to regret paying several thousands for seasons tix this year but we will see. I will wait to see how this plays out. I expect there to be fines and I hope they will be incrementally severe because if  they are not it will be a joke. I truly believe this will be over by  Week 4 and I will stay. If all hell breaks loose and there is  mass protests by the Bills players (I don't really care as much what happens in San Fran or elsewhere) it will cost me a lot of money because I won't respect a team or players that doesn't respect me, my Bills passion or my dollars.

 

It is not disrespectful to everybody.

"disrespecting the fan base" is a broad statement, and does not apply to everybody who is a fan.

I fail to see why this is such a hard concept to grasp.

There are people who are disrespected by it, and there are people who are not.

It's really not a hard thing to understand.

 

Another point is that the owners couldn't really "nip in the bud" anything, since the CBA and league rules basically can only be changed in the offseason.

You cannot fine somebody for something that isn't laid out in the league rules.

There was no pre-existing clause that required standing during the anthem, nor was there anything about kneeling in protest while on the field, etc.

Their hands were tied, even if they wanted to do something.

They did what they had to do, went through proper league procedure in the offseason to address this as they saw fit, and came to a compromise wherein if you are on the field you stand, but you are not required to be on the field.

I think it was about the best they could do to handle a situation that a hardline in either direction would have alienated a huge chunk of the fans.

In a no-win situation they took the bystander approach, which was about all they could do.

 

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

They are being respectful to the tradition of standing to honor America while the anthem is played. Yes , even a grossly misguided person is capable of that and even a cretin can understand it. There are likely numerous scumbags and societal menaces/ deviants in attendance at any game. No, we don't know who they are. What does that have to do with standing for the playing of the country's anthem? 

It has to with symbols meaning more than the very rights they represent. I’ll leave it at that. 

[SouthNYfan]

10 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

They are being respectful to the tradition of standing to honor America while the anthem is played. Yes , even a grossly misguided person is capable of that and even a cretin can understand it. There are likely numerous scumbags and societal menaces/ deviants in attendance at any game. No, we don't know who they are. What does that have to do with standing for the playing of the country's anthem? 

 

Somebody who stands for the flag, yet has a core belief that is against the entire principle that flag represents, such as being a white supremacist, cannot truly be respecting the flag.

I think that was his point.

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

I think you should make your case based on reason and logic rather than on an emotional appeal evoking “white supremecists”.

 

Why do you Americans have been standing for the flag since June 14, 1777?

 

 It’s been suggested that people who stand for the anthem are more patriotic than those that don’t. By pointing out there are anti American groups that do that all the time, I seek to point out the short sighted nature of that position. It’s s logical argument. And I would suggest that you are the one bringing the emotion into this particular exchange. I’m not upset by those who choose to exercise their right to sit, stand, or whatever while you seem to have a real visceral reaction to those that don’t stand. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

I think you should make your case based on reason and logic rather than on an emotional people  evoking “white supremecists”.

Why do you Americans have been standing for the flag since June 14, 1777?

 

Standing for the flag/song that later became our national anthem started at West Point in 1891:

This 1891 incident at West Point is also recounted in a 1917 history of Senator Burrows:  Toward the close of his speech Burrows said, "Soldiers should not be heedless to the sentiment of their songs and to the music of their bands. ... I would like to see every true American, soldier or citizen, when he hears the grand notes of our National air, rise to his feet in patriotic recognition and uncover."  Almost instantly the band began to play the "Star Spangled Banner," and Colonel Wilson, the Superintendent, and the entire battalion of cadets responded to Burrows patriotic suggestion by springing to their feet with a common impulse, which action was followed by every person in the audience, and all stood with bowed heads until the last note had ceased. It was an impressive sight, and attracted much public attention. Later, as a result of Senator Burrows agitation, the Army Regulations were made to prescribe this action, but it required no legislation to have the custom become universally popular. To Burrows, then, belongs the credit of first suggesting what has now become an unwritten law of the Nation.

By the turn of the century, standing was required of military personnel when acting in an official capacity.  The song was designated as the anthem in 1916 by president and  by congress in 1931

At this point it's a custom of more than 100 years, but let's not exaggerate where and when it emerged as such.  Standing and facing the flag as a sign of respect does not date to the Continental Congress resolution adopting a national flag. 

 

 

 

 

[Sky Diver]

Not standing for the flag is disrespectful to:

 

1. Those that have sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

2. The celebration of what unites as a people.

3. Our democratic tradition.

4. Our salute of the principle of justice.

5. Future generations who we should be setting an example for.

[SouthNYfan]

Just now, Sky Diver said:

Not standing for the flag is disrespectful to:

 

1. Those that have sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

2. The celebration of what unites as a people.

3. Our democratic tradition.

4. Our salute of the principle of justice.

5. Future generations who we should be setting an example for.

 

Except you're wrong on so many levels.

 

That is YOUR feeling that it is disrespectful. There are MANY military personnel, both current and vets as well, who do NOT feel it is disrespectful.

It actually IS disrespectful to the democratic tradition, and freedom of this country as a whole, to tell people that they MUST stand for the anthem/flag, as that goes against what freedom is, by you know, forcing somebody to do something.

I'm not sure what it has to do with justice, since the entire protest they were having is about injustice levied upon minorities, particularly the black community, by the US justice system.

Future generations should be set an example of freedom of choice, wherein they can CHOOSE to stand for said anthem/flag, based on their own decisions, not being indoctrinated to what their parents moral code, which is how we wound up with systemic multi-generational racial inequality to begin with, by parents and grandparents teaching their younger offspring the same archaic ideals they were raised on, such as racism and sexism.

 

I'm going to say this again, but I'm not quite sure how it is so difficult to understand that the feeling of disrespect towards kneeling during the anthem is just that, a feeling, a personal feeling, that is not disrespectful to everybody.

 

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

Plainly the players and teams primary intent was not to address the issue. It was not to communicate their viewpoint and to build a base from which to improve things. That is very plain. 

 

Because if you are trying to communicate a message in a professional way with a purpose in mind, you accept feedback about how your message is being received.

 

They did not do that. They are STILL, not doing that.

 

They got VERY robust feedback that a good portion of the audience was interpreting their message as one of being disrespectful to the flag, or the country, or the military. Or in a number of other ways that are not what they are supposedly trying to accomplish. 

 

So if the intent was to communicate they would have tried different way to get the message out clearly AND to build a base. Instead the kept on and divided their potential base.

 

I have learned to pay attention to what people do and not what they say. 

 

  And what has actually been done is, they did what they did and got 90 million dollars pledged to an activist organization that has been created for the purpose.  So it was a shake down in terms of what actually happened, when you take the words away.

 

Those are the actual facts so far. Im wondering what the actual facts will turn out to be moving forward, as opposed to what all sides will say about what happens.

 

 

 

 

[Victory Formation]

I don't support kneeling but I support locking arms to show unity amongst the players, I think that's pretty powerful.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, Sky Diver said:

Not standing for the flag is disrespectful to:

 

1. Those that have sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

2. The celebration of what unites as a people.

3. Our democratic tradition.

4. Our salute of the principle of justice.

5. Future generations who we should be setting an example for.

 

Certainly, I "get" that's your viewpoint.

 

And in lieu of that viewpoint, kneeling is an 'effective' protest (in the sense of attracting attention) because it "touches the heart of the existing order" in the minds of some.

That is why IMO it should be allowed.  In the words of Justice Jackson (W Va vs Barnett): " freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." 

 

I also believe the owners have the right to mandate the behavior of their employees "on the job" and require that players on the sideline stand, as long as there is a reasonable option to avoid "compelling speech" such as staying in the locker room.

 

As for disrespect, I don't share your viewpoint.  We have freedom to express differing views, that our armed forces fought for, how can expressing that freedom be disrespectful when it's what they fought to preserve?  How can setting an example of peaceful protest and civil disagreement be a bad one for future generations in a democracy? 

 

But I respect your right to hold your viewpoint and the right of people who feel they don't want to watch a game where that's part of the scene.

[SouthNYfan]

5 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Plainly the players and teams primary intent was not to address the issue. It was not to communicate their viewpoint and to build a base from which to improve things. That is very plain. 

 

Because if you are trying to communicate a message in a professional way with a purpose in mind, you accept feedback about how your message is being received.

 

They did not do that. They are STILL, not doing that.

 

They got VERY robust feedback that a good portion of the audience was interpreting their message as one of being disrespectful to the flag, or the country, or the military. Or in a number of other ways that are not what they are supposedly trying to accomplish. 

 

So if the intent was to communicate they would have tried different way to get the message out clearly AND to build a base. Instead the kept on and divided their potential base.

 

I have learned to pay attention to what people do and not what they say. 

 

  And what has actually been done is, they did what they did and got 90 million dollars pledged to an activist organization that has been created for the purpose.  So it was a shake down in terms of what actually happened, when you take the words away.

 

Those are the actual facts so far. Im wondering what the actual facts will turn out to be moving forward, as opposed to what all sides will say about what happens.

 

 

 

 

 

Kaep initially sat during the anthem.

A player on his team, a veteran army ranger, spoke with him and said he felt sitting was disrespectful, and asked him instead to kneel, as that would get his point across but still be respectful, so that is what he did.

He adjusted it and was open to this adjustment.

You missed that "actual fact".

[K-9]

10 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

Not standing for the flag is disrespectful to:

 

1. Those that have sacrificed their lives for our freedom.

2. The celebration of what unites as a people.

3. Our democratic tradition.

4. Our salute of the principle of justice.

5. Future generations who we should be setting an example for.

And you accuse me of bringing emotional appeals to the discussion? LOL! 

[Boatdrinks]

33 minutes ago, K-9 said:

It has to with symbols meaning more than the very rights they represent. I’ll leave it at that. 

No, it doesn't . It's far more complex than that. It's more about a viewpoint of debatable merit and a " problem" the scope of which is quite minute compared with many ( most) others. This viewpoint is being rammed down the throats of a fanbase in attendance to see a sporting event and be entertained by such. Those doing the ramming are choosing to do so on the company dime. It's far more nuanced than simply about rights. If this were taking place on a random street corner on a Sunday morning that take may be valid. In this case it's not. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Certainly, I "get" that's your viewpoint.

 

And in lieu of that viewpoint, kneeling is an 'effective' protest (in the sense of attracting attention) because it "touches the heart of the existing order" in the minds of some.

That is why IMO it should be allowed.  In the words of Justice Jackson (W Va vs Barnett): " freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." 

 

I also believe the owners have the right to mandate the behavior of their employees "on the job" and require that players on the sideline stand, as long as there is a reasonable option to avoid "compelling speech" such as staying in the locker room.

 

As for disrespect, I don't share your viewpoint.  We have freedom to express differing views, that our armed forces fought for, how can expressing that freedom be disrespectful when it's what they fought to preserve?  How can setting an example of peaceful protest and civil disagreement be a bad one for future generations in a democracy? 

 

But I respect your right to hold your viewpoint and the right of people who feel they don't want to watch a game where that's part of the scene.

But don't you see that you are deciding if it should be allowed or not, depending on if you think the reason for it is good or not?

 

Not as some kind of stupid insult but just to show the idea, is a Nazi salute OK during the anthem at an NFL game? If you wold support that they should be able to do that, then I would agree that your position is consistent. 

[Boatdrinks]

16 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Kaep initially sat during the anthem.

A player on his team, a veteran army ranger, spoke with him and said he felt sitting was disrespectful, and asked him instead to kneel, as that would get his point across but still be respectful, so that is what he did.

He adjusted it and was open to this adjustment.

You missed that "actual fact".

That is in the particular vet's opinion. It doesn't mean that opinion is shared by all. It's also not gospel simply because he is a vet. 

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, Cripple Creek said:

Just curious here.  How do you know what posts/authors have received warnings from the mods? I've been trying to figure this out for years and today I find out that lo and behold it is possible.  Please let me know how this is done. PM is fine if you want to keep it between us.

 

Thanks!

It requires an experiment or communication to Know such things.  As to seeing other posters points I'mnot certain.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

No, it doesn't . It's far more complex than that. It's more about a viewpoint of debatable merit and a " problem" the scope of which is quite minute compared with many ( most) others. This viewpoint is being rammed down the throats of a fanbase in attendance to see a sporting event and be entertained by such. Those doing the ramming are choosing to do so on the company dime. It's far more nuanced than simply about rights. If this were taking place on a random street corner on a Sunday morning that take may be valid. In this case it's not. 

Viewpoint of debateable merit? Meaning what the players were protesting in the first place? 

[BadLandsMeanie]

17 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Kaep initially sat during the anthem.

A player on his team, a veteran army ranger, spoke with him and said he felt sitting was disrespectful, and asked him instead to kneel, as that would get his point across but still be respectful, so that is what he did.

He adjusted it and was open to this adjustment.

You missed that "actual fact".

 I didn't miss it. It was just not relevant to what I was saying. 

 

I made no mention of Kaep's first inclination. I was speaking about the widespread protest that became a focus in a widespread way. 

 

You missed that.

 

Always with the counter attack bringing in extraneous stuff.

 

Just to argue. Argue argue. What about the point I raised and the topic I was writing about? What about that?

 

Do they look to you like men who are trying to spread the message they say they are trying to spread? If so, how can you justify that it is an effective means, when so very obviously, the issue they are supposedly talking about is a distant second in the national conversation about what they are doing?

 

And what result has there been that is anything remotely close to the one result I mentioned, which was the NFL funding of the newly created organization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

47 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Somebody who stands for the flag, yet has a core belief that is against the entire principle that flag represents, such as being a white supremacist, cannot truly be respecting the flag.

I think that was his point.

Splitting hairs. Where is the line drawn? Criminals in attendance? It's just about societal decorum, there are likely many misfits and misguided folks in attendance at public gatherings such as football games. I guess one can be standing and at the same time not be truly respectful. To determine that would be ridiculous.  That's not what's being discussed here. 

6 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Viewpoint of debateable merit? Meaning what the players were protesting in the first place? 

Yes. 

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

 

Yes. 

Well, that I can at least understand.

 

If the players were protesting an issue that was merited in your opinion, would taking a knee during the anthem still upset you?

[SouthNYfan]

13 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

 I didn't miss it. It was just not relevant to what I was saying. 

 

I made no mention of Kaep's first inclination. I was speaking about the widespread protest that became a focus in a widespread way. 

 

You missed that.

 

Always with the counter attack bringing in extraneous stuff.

 

Just to argue. Argue argue. What about the point I raised and the topic I was writing about? What about that?

 

Do they look to you like men who are trying to spread the message they say they are trying to spread? If so, how can you justify that it is an effective means, when so very obviously, the issue they are supposedly talking about is a distant second in the national conversation about what they are doing?

 

And what result has there been that is anything remotely close to the one result I mentioned, which was the NFL funding of the newly created organization?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, not "argue to argue".

Kaep initially adjusting his position from sitting to kneeling from the advice of a veteran on his team shows he was not trying to be disrespectful.

It's fully relevant to the discussion at hand.

You're ignoring that part of it.

 

18 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

That is in the particular vet's opinion. It doesn't mean that opinion is shared by all. It's also not gospel simply because he is a vet. 

 

Right, it is that "particular vet's opinion" which is exactly the point that many are making.

"It's disrespectful to the vets"

No, it isn't to many vets.

Some feel it is, some feel it isn't, which was my initial point.

If he's a vet, and it is not disrespectful to him, then yes, it is gospel to him.

That's the whole point of all of this.

Some feel it is, some feel it isn't.

It's pretty close to split down the middle.

12 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Splitting hairs. Where is the line drawn? Criminals in attendance? It's just about societal decorum, there are likely many misfits and misguided folks in attendance at public gatherings such as football games. I guess one can be standing and at the same time not be truly respectful. To determine that would be ridiculous.  That's not what's being discussed here. 

Yes. 

 

I don't disagree with you, I was merely trying to point out that just because somebody stands for the flag doesn't mean they actually respect it, same as just because somebody kneels for the flag doesn't mean they disrespect it.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Well, that I can at least understand.

 

If the players were protesting an issue that was merited in your opinion, would taking a knee during the anthem still upset you?

Almost certainly yes. I can't think of anything where it wouldn't . Maybe someone else could , so I'll leave it at almost. Just not the time or place for protests. Plenty of other opportunities to do so outside of the job. 

[Sky Diver]

49 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Certainly, I "get" that's your viewpoint.

 

And in lieu of that viewpoint, kneeling is an 'effective' protest (in the sense of attracting attention) because it "touches the heart of the existing order" in the minds of some.

That is why IMO it should be allowed.  In the words of Justice Jackson (W Va vs Barnett): " freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." 

 

I also believe the owners have the right to mandate the behavior of their employees "on the job" and require that players on the sideline stand, as long as there is a reasonable option to avoid "compelling speech" such as staying in the locker room.

 

As for disrespect, I don't share your viewpoint.  We have freedom to express differing views, that our armed forces fought for, how can expressing that freedom be disrespectful when it's what they fought to preserve?  How can setting an example of peaceful protest and civil disagreement be a bad one for future generations in a democracy? 

 

But I respect your right to hold your viewpoint and the right of people who feel they don't want to watch a game where that's part of the scene.

 

Of course we should have the right to disrespect the flag, our national symbol, and everything it represents. Whether it’s right or proper and whether it is the correct way to protest social injustice is another matter.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Sky Diver

[LikeIGiveADarn]

I watch the NFL to get away from politics and all the other bull **** for a few hours every Sunday in the fall. Kap is free to bring politics into it if he wishes, just as I am free to disagree with that decision and not watch the NFL. This has always been my stance on the matter.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

37 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

It requires an experiment or communication to Know such things.  As to seeing other posters points I'mnot certain.

 

Experiment?  Do tell....

 

Communication, if someone tells you "I got a warning from the mods for that" fair enough, if they're a truthful chap they probably did

If they tell you "so and so didn't", how do they know that? "I heard it from a friend who...heard it from a friend who...heard it from another"

 

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

19 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Of course we should have the right to disrespect the flag, our national symbol, and everything it represents. Whether it’s right or proper and whether it is the correct way to protest social injustice is another matter.

 

Not everybody feels it's disrespectful.

How do you not understand this simple fact of the discussion?

[Sky Diver]

2 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Not everybody feels it's disrespectful.

How do you not understand this simple fact of the discussion?

 

Many do which is why it is a contentious issue.

[SouthNYfan]

1 minute ago, Sky Diver said:

 

Many do which is why it is a contentious issue.

 

It's not to everybody, which is also why it's a contentious issue, yet you continue to call it disrespectful in your discussions as if it is a fact and all view it that way.